Delhi High Court
Sugandha Khaitan vs The Bar Council Of Delhi on 12 March, 2018
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 12.03.2018
+ W.P.(C) 2285/2018
SUGANDHA KHAITAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
versus
THE BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. T. Singhdev with Mr.
Tarun Verma, Ms.
Amandeep Kaur, Ms.
Michelle Biakthan Sangi,
Ms. Puja Sarkar & Mr.
Abhijit Chakravarty,
Advocates
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. The only direction which the petitioner seeks in the present
writ petition is that the respondent should add her name in the
electoral list in respect of elections to be held for Bar Council of
Delhi (BCD).
2. The petitioner, who appears in person, says that she was
admitted provisionally to the BCD as she had to clear the All India
Bar Exam (AIBE). It is the petitioner's case that she obtained her
AIBE result only on 09.03.2018. A download of the result, as
obtained from the web, has been placed before me.
3. Mr. Singhdev, who appears on advance notice, says that the
elections to BCD are being held in accordance with the directions
issued by the Supreme Court in Transfer Case (Civil) No.126/2015,
titled Ajayinder Sangwan & Ors. vs. Bar Council of Delhi.
3.1 Learned counsel further informs me that a notice was taken
out by BCD on 30.11.2017, whereby, objections were invited to
the preliminary electoral roll published by it. It is further
submitted that the final electoral roll was published on 15.01.2018,
in consonance with the order dated 14.12.2017, and the earlier
order dated 24.11.2017, passed by the Supreme Court. Learned
counsel also says that the time table for holding the elections has
been notified on 24.01.2018.
3.2 As per this notice, according to Mr. Singhdev, the elections
are to be held on 16 and 17 March 2018.
3.3 In these circumstances, the learned counsel says that since
the election process has commenced, no relief at this stage can be
granted to the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Sugandha says that the issue in the
present petition is about inclusion of her name in the electoral list
and not about correcting the electoral roll. It is emphasised by the
petitioner that she has no objection qua the electoral roll already
published by the BCD. The petitioner says that since she was
required to pass AIBE and the result qua which was declared only
on 09.03.2018, she could not have approached the Court at an
earlier date.
5. While there is some merit in what the petitioner says, that is,
she cannot be faulted for the delay in approaching the court, her
plea at this stage cannot be entertained for the reason that the
election process has already commenced (See N.P. Ponnuswami v.
Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, 1952 SCR
218: AIR 1952 SC 64). The period between now and the date
when the elections are stated to be held is too short to interdict the
election process and direct inclusion of the petitioner's name in the
electoral rolls. Therefore, no relief can be granted at this stage.
6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
7. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 12, 2018
ns
